State Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, and state Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, used Norwich as a backdrop Tuesday to propose legislation that would provide $15 million to Connecticut schools to improve security. The money would be available for one-time capital expenditures, such as the installation of security buzzer systems, so-called “smart card” admission keys and cameras.
[...]
Williams said the state funding would come in part from the $500 million state surplus and partly through state bonding. (Bessette)
Some questions: are these systems really effective? Are schools asking for them?
And is this the beginning of the piecemeal dismantling of the surplus?
Source
Bessette, Claire. "Legislators Say Some Of State's Surplus Should Be Set Aside For School Security." New London Day 6 December, 2006.
12 comments:
Yep. Hartford just can't stop spending Other People's Money. Responsible legislators would first pay down the accumulated pension debt. Career politicians curry favor with special interests to get re-elected. What problem does added school security solve?
Jeez - how 'bout we take some of that $500 million and teach students to read instead of teaching them to fear?
There is no surplus.
Well I voted for the republican state senate candidate and state rep candidate for this very reason - we need to stop the out of control spending.
The question is, of those complaining already, did you?
And even if Rell tries to stop this they can over-ride her anyway. Kudos CT for a fine job at furthering the tax and spend mentality of our once great state.
I guess I am piling on here, and in the interest of full disclosure, my wife is a teacher, but paying down the pension debt is a more pressing concern than school security.
This is what we get for electing Democrat super-majorities.
First, as someone said above is there really a surplus anyway? We don't use GAAP accounting methods, and we don't meet our pension obligations. Those obligations are now in the red by many, many billions of dollars. It's easy to have a surplus if you don't pay for, your obligations.
Second, is this the start of the dismantling of this "surplus"? In a word, yes.....But since these guys get reelected year after year for doing the same thing year after year why would they suddenly act differently?
Term limits... 5 terms (10 years), no more.
The problem with term limits is that lobbyists don't get term limited, and they wind up accruing all the power in town when legislators only get a couple of terms to build a governing base and policy portfolio. And, those who want to remain in public service then must always be preparing for a higher office run, giving lobbying dollars even greater leverage.
Voters will toss out an incumbent when they feel it's necessary, look at Jack Stone getting the boot. If we're going to have kingpins in the legislative process, I'd rather have someone who at least has to face voters every couple of years.
We need additional Major Parties choices.
I'm curious to know the basis for allocation of the funds. Town population? Student population? Municipal crime rate? School crime rate?
Would those measurement tools be offset by crime prevention measures already in place?
Eliminate the state tax. Make CT a more friendly place for the middle class to live.
Post a Comment